27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Between Feb 24, 2021, and March 5, 2023, 377 dyads were randomly assigned (1:1), 189 to usual treatment and 188 to intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among community-living dyads, a nonpharmacologic biobehavioral environmental intervention compared with control resulted in better outcomes for COPE dyads at 4 months. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
15 care sites with 289 residents were randomly assigned. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to test the impact of Function-Focused Care for the Cognitively Impaired Intervention on nursing home residents with dementia and the nursing assistants who care for them. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a need for more high-quality outcome studies, particularly using randomized designs to control for confounding. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance care planning was effective in reducing family carer uncertainty in decision-making concerning the care of their family member and improving perceptions of quality of care in nursing homes. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Specialty palliative care consultation for hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia is feasible and promising to improve decision-making and some treatment outcomes. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 4267 participants with probable dementia in HRS, the mean (SD) age was 82.2 (7.6) years, 2930 (survey-weighted 69.4%) were female, and 785 (survey-weighted 12.1%) identified as Black. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,404 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Future research should focus on ways to involve people with dementia in decision-making through supported means. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The methods we used for intervention fidelity allowed nursing home staff to implement a goals of care decision aid intervention for advanced dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 151 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This landmark NIH-funded trial (REACH II) tested a structured, multi-part support program for 642 Hispanic, White, and Black family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's or related dementias across 5 U.S. cities. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 642 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 428 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Health care expenditures among persons with dementia were substantially larger than those for other diseases, and many of the expenses were uncovered (uninsured). 1 key finding →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current policy emphasises the importance of 'living well' with dementia, but there has been no comprehensive synthesis of the factors related to quality of life (QoL), subjective well-being or life satisfaction in people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 198 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is an extensive body of qualitative literature on the experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia on receiving and adapting to a diagnosis of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,095 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, quantitative results were inconclusive owing to small sample size. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Home based support for caregivers of persons with dementia, which emphasizes the use of locally available, low-cost human resources, is feasible, acceptable and leads to significant improvements in caregiver mental health and burden of caring. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A deep learning algorithm based on patient demographic information and longitudinal clinical notes appeared to show promising results in predicting mortality among patients with dementia in different time frames. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A risk score based on 12 variables from the MDS estimates 6-month mortality for nursing home residents with advanced dementia with greater accuracy than existing prognostic guidelines. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,799 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with advanced dementia often receive poor end-of-life care. 5 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Surgical repair of a hip fracture was associated with lower mortality among NH residents with advanced dementia and should be considered together with the residents' goals of care in management decisions. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,441 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It was difficult for a palliative care research team to influence the care of advanced dementia patients in the acute hospital setting. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 99 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
End-of-life care and research that focuses only on cognitive and functional decline may fail to recognise the complexities and unmet needs relevant to dementia and end of life. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ED attendance in the last year of life for people with dementia is common and is increasing. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,867 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
10 of the 1,002 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →